[Pacemaker] Shouldn't colocation -inf: be mandatory?

[Andrew Beekhof]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic <dejanmm at fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:30:45PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic <dejanmm at fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:57:47AM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Andreas Kurz <andreas.kurz at linbit.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Tuesday 15 June 2010 08:40:58 Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Vadym Chepkov <vchepkov at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > On Jun 7, 2010, at 8:04 AM, Vadym Chepkov wrote:
>> >> >> >> I filed bug 2435, glad to hear "it's not me"
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Andrew closed this bug
>> >> >> > (http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2435) as
>> >> >> > resolved, but I respectfully disagree.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I will try to explain a problem again in this list.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > lets assume you want to have several resources running on the same node.
>> >> >> > They are independent, so if one is going down, others shouldn't be
>> >> >> > stopped. You would do this by using a resource set, like this:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > primitive dummy1 ocf:pacemaker:Dummy
>> >> >> > primitive dummy2 ocf:pacemaker:Dummy
>> >> >> > primitive dummy3 ocf:pacemaker:Dummy
>> >> >> > colocation together inf: ( dummy1 dummy2 dummy3 )
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > and I expect them to run on the same host, but they are not and I
>> >> >> > attached hb_report to the case to prove it.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Andrew closed it with the comment "Thats because you have
>> >> >> > sequential="false" for the colocation set." But sequential="false" means
>> >> >> > doesn't matter what order do they start.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No.  Thats not what it means.
>> >> >> And I believe I should know.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It means that the members of the set are NOT collocated with each
>> >> >> other, only with any preceding set.
>> >> >
>> >> > Just for clarification:
>> >> >
>> >> > colocation together inf: ( dummy1 dummy2 dummy3 ) dummy4
>> >> >
>> >> > .... is a shortcut for:
>> >> >
>> >> > colocation together1 inf: dummy4 dummy1
>> >> > colocation together1 inf: dummy4 dummy2
>> >> > colocation together1 inf: dummy4 dummy3
>> >> >
>> >> > ... is that correct?
>> >>
>> >> Only if sequential != false.
>> >
>> > You wanted to say "sequential == false"?
>>
>> no.
>>
>> !=
>> ne
>> not equal to
>
> Hmm, just checked in the Conf explained, on p.47 of the copy I
> have here it says the other way. Or I don't understand the matter
> either.
>
>> >> For some reason the shell appears to be setting that by default.
>> >
>> > This is sequential == false:
>> >
>> > colocation together inf: ( dummy1 dummy2 dummy3 ) dummy4
>> >
>> > This is sequential == true:
>> >
>> > colocation together inf: dummy1 dummy2 dummy3 dummy4
>>
>> How do you say that 1-3 are in one sequential set and 4 is in a different set?
>
> No way. Make two sets perhaps?


Right.  How does one do that?

To me, ( a b c ) would have been the obvious syntax for defining a set.
Not for setting sequential=false.